Specifications:The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is a high performance, water-resistant, and ultra wide-angle Canon L-series lens. It has been specifically designed for improved edge-to-edge image quality that will meet the strict requirements of professional and high-end amateur photographers. It features 3 high-precision aspherical lens elements, each of a different type: ground, replica and GMo for even better image quality than the original EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM. The circular aperture produces a beautiful and natural background blur when shooting at wider apertures. Other features include internal focusing, a ring type USM (Ultra Sonic Monitor), and new AF algorithms for fast and quiet autofocusing.

Got this lens at a great price. I needed a WA lens for my wedding trip to Hawaii coming up. Very nice perspective on the 5DII. Well built as most L lenses are expected. Nice saturation of colors. This completes my three L lens set up from 16-35L II, 24-70L, and 70-200L II line up.

I have been using this for shooting stars and star trails and have been really happy.
A prime lens with a larger aperture might be more beneficial for astro photography, but using this for landscapes and other purposed I have been completely satisfied.
Great wide angle selections work well in her work. I find myself want to steal hers now, Just another Great L lens!

UWA's & Canon have always been a pita, not sharp corner to corner, overpriced,... so I had to look to the competitors and thanks to FredMiranda I discovered the value of Tokina!!!

It's a very professional but underestimated brand, marketing is very limited in some countries, they should expand their marketing. Most of their lenses are optically reaching perfection and built sturdy like a tank (no plastics!).

If you are doubting to buy this lens, save your money for a Tokina or if you have it and are dissapointed with the corners, sell it asap as the value will drop.

Sep 3, 2014

daryl.cheshireOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 2, 2009Location: AustraliaPosts: 0

Review Date: Jun 12, 2014

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

awesome lens, can't fault it. Cannot find any 'softening' at the edges and works well at f/2.8
I like how the zoom element is small enough to move within the lens body so it doesn't extend like a telephoto zoom.

Since I bought this lens my 24-70 2.8 stays at my studio most of the time when I'm out shooting weddings. It's noticeably sharper than my 24-70 2.8 and slightly less imposant/heavy. Though it's built like a tank and weather sealed.
I hesitated with the 17-40 because of the price, well I don't regret buying this lens, especially as 2.8 can come in really handy when shooting inside.

This lens is must have for me no matter the negative aspects most of my photos are done with this lens so really nice one.

Feb 18, 2014

jrobichaudOfflineImage Upload: On

Registered: Feb 21, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 429

Review Date: Jan 1, 2014

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7

Pros:

2.8 and uses front filters

Cons:

poor IQ wider than 20mm

I am so disappointed in this lens! I have owned 3 different versions and all are unusable on the outer 25% wider than 20mm with groups of people. At no focal length or aperture can this lens compete with the 24-70mm 2.8 mk II. (or compete with the Tokina 16-28mm 2.8).
Please Canon, do something about this! Nikon's 14-24mm blows this away to the point that it makes more sense to give up AF and open aperture metering if edges are important.

Jan 1, 2014

Erik_JOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 31, 2013Location: SwedenPosts: 208

Review Date: Oct 11, 2013

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

The zoom range, Colours and build, Takes filter

Cons:

Sarpness wide open and in the corners

It's a rather nice super wide zoom with a good range. But it could be a bit sharper in the corners and edges.

Oct 11, 2013

vmirageOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 29, 2010Location: N/APosts: 3

Review Date: Jul 29, 2013

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,475.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Excellent focusing, Sharp

Cons:

Upgraded from a 24-105L and I was surprised at how much better the performance is with this lens. It focuses like a laser and quickly every time, whereas the 24-105 would search and miss very often especially in dimmer light. The build quality is also better and feels less plasticky and more solid.

I mostly do landscape work and unless I decide to spend $2k+ on some primes (like the 14mm) I don't think this lens will leave my camera for the next 2-5 years.

Jul 29, 2013

Lunchb0x8OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 19, 2012Location: AustraliaPosts: 141

Review Date: Apr 7, 2013

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,450.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Fast focus, sharp and clear images, no CA in my copy.

Cons:

N/A

I picked up this lens from a local dealer on Boxing day thanks to their 10% off all lenses and bodies.

Since picking it up with a 24-105 f/4L I find I use this lens almost exclusively.

Takes great shots, 35mm on my old 650D allowed for some nice up close shots of people in party environments and dropping it to 16mm allowed me to pickup most of the room/deck of people without putting me out on the wet grass.

Without a doubt this lens is going to be a staple of my kit, especially since acquiring a 5DMkIII.

When it eventually dies (which I think it might with some of my trips I have planned) I will gladly buy another.

This is a great lens for most everything from landscapes to just picking up snaps in a room/bar environment.

Apr 7, 2013

Pierre_BOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 21, 2010Location: CanadaPosts: 2

Review Date: Mar 19, 2013

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Great optics, quality build

Cons:

Wish the focal length didn't double over the 24-70. Something like a 14-24 would be nice.

Still a slightly expensive lens, but as always, you get what you pay for. I'm mainly an urban photographer and a music photographer. While I only sparingly use it for shows, this is my go to lens for urban walkarounds. I love getting up close to things and people to capture to great moments, and nothing says "Ohhh" like shooting a wide cityscape

Expensive, very large filter size, a bit heavy but is expected on a lens like this.

I got this lens about a year ago and can't stop using it! I do love the zoom range of this lens especially when used on a FF camera. I find this lens attached to my 5D most of the time and love the fact that it can even be used as a macro lens, well, not so, but the minimum focusing distance is quite good for a wide angle. This lens is built like a tank and is fully weather sealed when used with a filter. Which by the way is an expensive filter, I went and bought my self a Canon polarizing filter and I am not impressed with the results, I would have prefered to buy a German make but it was more than $100 over the Canon filter.

Over all an excelent lens.

Mar 7, 2013

tororoOfflineBuy and Sell: On

Registered: May 26, 2010Location: JapanPosts: 37

Review Date: Feb 17, 2013

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Low CAs, 2.8, 16mm, USM, build quality, weather shield

Cons:

Flare, filter size, weight

My very good copy of 17-40L started to have some focus issue after years of heavy use so I looked for another good copy of 17-40L but no luck even after trying several new copies. I gave up and decided to go for 16-35mm 2.8L II instead. I tried just a few new copies and was able to find a very good copy without any decentering issue.
Comparing with 17-40L, I immediately noticed that 16-35L II is more prone to flare but it has less CAs. 17-40L is easier to handle due to its light weight and smaller filter size. However, it is actually nice to have 2.8 for more versatile photography with ultra wide angle.

Much better than its predecessor. Nice colors and contrast. Lightweight, but durable as a 'L' lens should be. Great lens.

Cons:

Not as sharp as I would like wide open at 35mm. BIG, expensive filter size.

The first 'L' lens I ever purchased was the first incarnation of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM and I was very pleased with the results, especially when mated to a variety of different Canon dSLR cameras, including the 20D, 50D, 5D, and 1D Mark III. However, once I moved to a camera with more megapixels, such as the 5D Mark II and Mark III, the quality of those images began to suffer. That's why I purchased the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. And I've never regretted the purchase.

I do most of my work in dirty, dusty places in the rural parts of Montana photographing ranches, cowboys, agriculture and the like, and I'm very happy, that like its predecessor, this lens is weather sealed and is built with the typical Canon 'L' lens ruggedness. Montana photography means I do a lot of landscape photography, and I feel the color and contrast of this lens is much better than the first version. It has a snappy autofocus, and the lens is very lightweight.

For me, 16mm to 35mm is the perfect wide angle lens. And although it suffers a bit wide open at 16mm, it is beautiful at at almost every other aperture and focal length. I didn't like buying screw-on filters for this lens; it was an odd filter size and because of that filters were expensive. Other photographers might night find that to be much of a problem.

Here are some examples of photographs I made here in Montana using this lens to give you a feel for what I'm currently doing with this lens.

There are reports of unit variation, and mine had slightly de-centered element, which was repaired by Canon under warranty, giving me a kick-ass lens. The center is very sharp at f/2.8, and corners are very good at f/8. So, if you aren't happy with IQ, send it to Canon -- you should expect the lens to perform well.

This is may preferred travel walk-around lens -- I can go all day without camera bag or additional lens.

Combined with the 28-300L, these two lenses can cover almost any assignment when you don't know what you are walking into, giving 16-300mm coverage.